(click on ads for more details)

I agree with your "Three Notes-Kentucky Area News."  Well written.  The politically connected horse industry is setting up for a government bailout. This is an example where the horse industry profits are privatized and the horse industry losses are socialized. The little businessman takes all the risks with no government backup.  The most famous government intervention in behalf of business was 25 years ago, when the Feds bailed out Chrysler Corporation which was facing bankruptcy.

Public financing for the arena is popping up again.  Do you know of a procedure whereby a citizen group can band together and "force" a referendum?  Otherwise, our free spending politicians will proceed and spend the public's money.

I do believe that a supervisor should, within reason, be able to remove a subordinate.  However, particularly with public employees, the supervisor should state the reason for removal.  And Rebecca has failed, or refused, to give particulars or state a valid reason.  Even in private industry, supervisors are rarely able to dismiss an employee without giving justification.  Rebecca should clarify and comfort the public that the reason for dismal is not because of the way Melinda brushes  her hair, or because of the church that Melinda attends, or (like Hillary Clinton and the travel office) because Rebecca wants to replace a competent employee with a political crony.

Last comment on the Jefferson Review---I believe that Pat Pending has patenting and pricing of drugs confused.  The insurance companies are not responsible for pricing and the patent protection of prescription drugs. The pharmaceutical companies fight for retaining extended patent protection so that pricing can be elevated.  The reason given is patent protection and pricing are necessary to fund drug research.  But the pharmaceutical companies do not ever say that dividends, stock appreciation, and executive compensation are ever an issue in maintaining extended patent protection.

I enjoy reading Jefferson Review.

Regards to all,  Sheldon

(Editor’s note:  The article in last week’s issue concerning drug prices may have been a bit confusing.  It did not pertain to maintaining patents on drugs.  Instead, it involved the petition from the insurance industry to change some drugs from requiring a prescription to being able to be sold over the counter, without a prescription.  The same patents would be in force in either case.  The drug companies were opposed to being able to sell their drugs without a prescription.  The question was why did they expect market pressures to force their prices down substantially when selling over the counter as opposed to the price they could charge when selling by prescription.)